plasticity_create_counterbore

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the geometric interpretation of axis/entry point, that the cut is built as 'three explicit native history steps', and that it returns each confirmed revision. It does not cover what happens on failure or whether the cut is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its geometry, with no filler. The final clause about native history steps and confirmed revisions is slightly cryptic but earns its place as behavioral context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter, zero-coverage destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers geometry and history behavior but leaves most parameter naming, unit, and revision-semantics questions open. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters (8 required), so the description carries the full burden and only partially delivers. It clarifies the axis direction convention and the meaning of entryCenterMm, but says nothing about overshootMm, intent, revision, or the distinction between throughDepthMm and counterboreDepthMm.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource ('Cut an exact through hole with a concentric flat-bottom counterbore') and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby siblings (create_countersink, create_through_hole) by naming the flat-bottom concentric geometry. An agent can pick this over create_through_hole or create_countersink without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is only implied through a geometric precondition ('entry point lies on the target surface and the axis points into it'). No explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternatives among the ~8 hole/counterbore siblings, and no prerequisite (e.g. a valid revision or target body) is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.